Abstract
In this paper, we present an efficient numerical method for the valuation of American put options under the Heston model. Firstly, by adding a penalty term, the pricing model, which is a linear complementary problem on an unbounded domain, is transformed into a nonlinear parabolic partial differential equation. Then, the perfectly matched layer technique is applied to truncate the solution domain. To deal with the challenge arising from the nonlinearity, a semi-implicit finite element scheme is utilized, which makes the numerical implementation feasible and efficient. Furthermore, we shall prove that the full-discrete matrix is an M-matrix under some moderate assumptions, which implies the nonnegativity of the numerical solutions. Finally, some numerical simulations are carried out to test the performance of the proposed method.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Arregui I, Salvador B, Sevcovic D, Vazquez C (2019) PDE models for American options with counterparty risk and two stochastic factors: mathematical analysis and numerical solution. Comput Math Appl 79:1525–1542. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.camwa.2019.09.014
Black F, Scholes M (1973) The pricing of options and corporate liabilities. J Polit Econ 81:637–654. https://doi.org/10.1086/260062
Chen W, Wang S (2015) A finite difference method for pricing European and American options under a geometric Lévy process. J Ind Manag Optim 11:241–264. https://doi.org/10.3934/jimo.2015.11.241
Chen C, Wang Z, Yang Y (2019) A new operator splitting method for American options under fractional Black–Scholes models. Comput Math Appl 77:2130–2144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.camwa.2018.12.007
Cox JC, Ross SA, Rubinstein M (1979) Option pricing: a simplified approach. J Financ Econ 7:229–263. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-405X(79)90015-1
Fouque JP, Papanicolaou G, Sircar KR (2000) Derivatives in financial markets with stochastic volatility. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Gao Y, Song H, Wang X, Zhang K (2019) Primal-dual active set method for pricing American better-of option on two assets. Commun Nonlinear Sci Numer Simul 80:104976. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cnsns.2019.104976
Heston SL (1993) A closed-form solution for options with stochastic volatility with applications to bond and currency options. Rev Financ Stud 6:327–343. https://doi.org/10.1093/rfs/6.2.327
Hull JC (2011) Options, futures, and other derivates, 8th edn. Pearson, Upper Saddle River
Hull J, White A (1987) The pricing of options on assets with stochastic volatilities. J Financ 42:281–300. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6261.1987.tb02568.x
Ikonen S, Toivanen J (2008) Efficient numerical methods for pricing American options under stochastic volatility. Numer Methods Partial Differ Equ 24:104–126. https://doi.org/10.1002/num.20239
Ikonen S, Toivanen J (2009) Operator splitting methods for pricing American options under stochastic volatility. Numer Math 113:299–324. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00211-009-0227-5
Ikonen S, Toivanen J (2004) Operator splitting methods for American options with stochastic volatility. In: European congress on computational methods in applied science and engineering
Ito K, Toivanen J (2009) Lagrange multiplier approach with optimized finite difference stencils for pricing American options under stochastic volatility. SIAM J Sci Comput 31:2646–2664. https://doi.org/10.1137/07070574X
Kadalbajoo MK, Kumar A, Tripathi LP (2015) Application of the local radial basis function-based finite difference method for pricing American options. Int J Comput Math 92:1608–1624. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207160.2014.950571
Kalantari R, Shahmorad S (2019) A stable and convergent finite difference method for fractional Black–Scholes model of American put option pricing. Comput Econ 53:191–205. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10614-017-9734-0
Kunoth A, Schneider C, Wiechers K (2012) Multiscale methods for the valuation of American options with stochastic volatility. Int J Comput Math 89:1145–1163. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207160.2012.672732
Lantos N, Nataf F (2010) Perfectly matched layers for the heat and advection-diffusion equations. J Comput Phys 229:9042–9052. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcp.2010.08.004
Merton RC (1971) Optimum consumption and portfolio rules in a continuous time model. J Econ Theory 3:373–413. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-0531(71)90038-X
Merton RC (1973) Theory of rational option pricing. Bell J Econ Manag Sci 4:141–183. https://doi.org/10.2307/3003143
Miao WC, Lee YH, Wang JY (2017) Using forward Monte-Carlo simulation for the valuation of American barrier options. Ann Oper Res 264:339–366. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-017-2639-4
Persson J, Von Sydow L (2010) Pricing American options using a space-time adaptive finite difference method. Math Comput Simul 80:1922–1935. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matcom.2010.02.008
Sapariuc I, Marcozzi MD, Flaherty JE (2004) A numerical analysis of variational valuation techniques for derivative securities. Appl Math Comput 159:171–198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amc.2003.10.041
Seydel RU (2009) Tools for computational finance, 4th edn. Springer, Berlin
Simonato JG (2019) American option pricing under Garch with non-normal innovations. Optim Eng 20:1–28. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3166295
Song H, Zhang K, Li Y (2017) Finite element and discontinuous Galerkin methods with perfect matched layers for American options. Numer Math Theory Methods Appl 10:829–851. https://doi.org/10.4208/nmtma.2017.0020
Stein E, Stein J (1991) Stock price distributions with stochastic volatility: an analytic approach. Rev Financ Stud 4:727–752. https://doi.org/10.1093/rfs/4.4.727
Winkler G, Apel T, Wystup U (2001) Valuation of options in Heston’s stochastic volatility model using finite element methods. Foreign Exchang Risk, London
Xu G, Zheng H (2009) Approximate basket options valuation for a jump-diffusion model. Int J Comput Math 45:188–194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.insmatheco.2009.05.012
Zhang K, Wang S (2012) Pricing American bond options using a penalty method. Automatica 48:472–479. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.automatica.2012.01.009
Zhang R, Song H, Luan N (2014) Weak Galerkin finite element method for valuation of American options. Front Math China 9:455–476. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11464-014-0358-6
Zhang K, Song H, Li J (2015) Front-fixing FEMs for the pricing of American options based on a PML technique. Appl Anal 94:903–931. https://doi.org/10.1080/00036811.2014.907563
Zhang R, Zhang Q, Song H (2015) An efficient finite element method for pricing American multi-asset options. Commun Nonlinear Sci Numer Simul 29:25–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cnsns.2015.03.022
Zhu SP, Chen WT (2011) A spectral-collocation method for pricing perpetual American puts with stochastic volatility. Appl Math Comput 217:9033–9040. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amc.2011.03.110
Zvan R, Forsyth PA, Vetzal KR (1998) Penalty methods for American options with stochastic volatility. J Comput Appl Math 91:199–218. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0377-0427(98)00037-5
Acknowledgements
The work of Q. Zhang was supported by the education department project of Liaoning Province under the Grant No. LJKZ0157. The work of H. Song was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China under the Grant No. 11701210, the education department project of Jilin Province under the Grant No. JJKH20211031KJ, the Natural Science Foundation of Jilin Province under the Grants No. 20190103029JH, 20200201269JC, and the fundamental research funds for the Central Universities. The work of Y. Hao was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China under the Grant No. 11901606. The authors also wish to thank the High Performance Computing Center of Jilin University, Computing Center of Jilin Province, and Key Laboratory of Symbolic Computation and Knowledge Engineering of Ministry of Education for essential computing support.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Communicated by Pierre Etore.
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Appendix: The proof of Theorem 5
Appendix: The proof of Theorem 5
In this part, we present the proof of Theorem 5 in detail. Without loss of generality, we apply the equidistant partition with \(\Delta x=\Delta y=h\), and only take the interior point for example to discuss the properties of the discretized matrix. For the other cases, we can obtain the same conclusions by applying the similar techniques. The partition elements around the interior point k are given in Fig. 5.
Since the weak form (11) can be reorganized as
the k-th equation of the discretized system (11) could be rewritten as
Now, we will verify that the discretized matrix is an M-matrix. For simplify, we only discuss the case where \(\delta =0\), other cases are similar. For the first triangle in Fig. 5, the basis functions can be defined as:
Then we have
For the second triangle, the basis functions can be defined as:
and the corresponding coefficients are
For the third triangle, the basis functions can be defined as:
and the corresponding coefficients are
For the fourth triangle, the basis functions can be defined as:
and the corresponding coefficients are
For the fifth triangle, the basis functions can be defined as:
and the corresponding coefficients are
For the sixth triangle, the basis functions can be defined as:
and the corresponding coefficients are
From the above, we can obtain that
Under the assumptions of Theorem 5, it is not difficult to verify
Hence, the coefficient matrix of system (11) is an M-matrix, whose inverse is nonnegative. Since \(F_k^m\ge 0\), \(u^m_k(k=1,2,\ldots ,(N_1+1)(N_2+1))\) are all nonnegative.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Zhang, Q., Song, H. & Hao, Y. Semi-implicit FEM for the valuation of American options under the Heston model. Comp. Appl. Math. 41, 73 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40314-022-01764-y
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40314-022-01764-y